July 25, 2008

"... when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow...."

Read the whole thing — in the London TimesOnline — or... wait... is this humor theme played out? This is a good example of something that takes no new insight. It's got to play out. This isn't satire. There's no critique of Obama in this, just continuous ga-ga admiration. I'm getting a tummy ache from all this candy.

ADDED: Just a bit of a sledgehammer. I know this guy is making fun of the deification. I'm saying that even this as a humor theme is played out. This is candy too. "The Daily Show" runs with jokes like this every damned night. I started blogging this article because I thought the mockery of the deification tasted pretty good. But then in the middle of putting up the post, I realized it was making me sick too!

24 comments:

That Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on -- and takes very seriously -- his desire for a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world -- one who doesn't have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American -- an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to becoming something akin to the president of the world.

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

You're right that it's not very original, but it is pretty funny anyway and more or less hits the nail on the head.

I mean, look at the Der Spiegel quote above. Oh good, Obama has a "desire for a better world"! Unlike all those other politicians who want things to get worse? And thank god his speeches don't have any of those "cheap effects", but only really substantial stuff like "yes we can!".

The same German press who has lambasted Bush's "unilateralism" for years because he didn't ask the Europeans for permission on every detail of US foreign policy for the last 8 years is now talking about a President of the World.

Well, at least it's impossible for them to claim to be "unbiased" with a straight face.

If they don't, then it becomes mandates, and then no one likes you. Try asking your kids to brush their teeth at night. You'll get the idea.

Obama is surfing the love wave right now, which is sort of like finding a bar in a dry county - you don't really question the decor - you just thank god it's there.

Bush has created (rightly or wrongly - not the question here) such a ripe target for derision on the world stage that Obama looks much, much better than he would outside of that context. Hell, even Hillary would have scored well overseas.

What happens when the press starts looking for something other than puff pieces on Obama will be the kicker. If they really do their homework (read John Kass in the Chicago Trib) they'll start seeing the reality behind nominating a Chicago Democrat for President. He has more sticky fingerprints on him than a Chicago Cop's night stick after a trip to the donut shop.

What will really be interesting is the reaction by the impassioned masses to revealing his actual rise to power - how much will they be willing to overlook?

The main difference between Bush and Clinton, where international relations are concerned, is that Clinton was good at bullshitting; Bush isn't.

Take Kyoto, for example. Clinton made some very pretty speeches about global warming, made a show of signing the document... and he knew it would never be ratified. He didn't even submit it to BE ratified. He took it home, threw it in a drawer, and forgot about it. Along comes Bush, who comes right out and says "we're not going to ratify Kyoto". Now, anyone with a brain already knew that (the 95-0 Senate resolution against Kyoto was a big hint), but Bush had committed the cardinal sin of not merely rejecting the international consensus but admitting to having done so. *That* is the kind of thing that made him a hated figure internationally.

Of course, part of being a good diplomat is being able to blow smoke up people's asses -- to promise them the moon, then deliver nothing, all without them realizing they've been suckered. Bush is atrociously bad at this. Both men launched wars in the face of UN opposition, for example, but Clinton managed to keep a straight face while arguing that he was respecting international opinion. So even as people ranting and raged about how *America* was acting like a bully, Clinton himself escaped most of that condemnation. It was quite a song and dance routine.

My sense is that Obama isn't good enough to pull it off. Clinton was good at thinking on his feet, but Obama runs into trouble when not following a script.